‘No way Schlumberger’

Jan 19, 2023 Court Stories, Features / Columnists, News

---

…High Court refuses to grant stay of ruling against company operating radioactive facility at Houston

Kaieteur News – Justice Nareshwar Harnanan on Wednesday refused a request by Schlumberger Guyana Inc, (SGI)  a major contractor for Exxon Mobil, to stay his judgment which he ruled against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’s decision to allow the company to construct and operate a radioactive chemical facility at Houston, East Bank Demerara (EBD), without an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).

That decision of the EPA was successfully challenged in the High Court last December by Houston residents Danuta Radzik, Vanda Radzik, and Raphael Singh.

The trio had filed an action in the High Court to declare the EPA’s decision to waive the EIA on the grounds of the dangers the operations that a radioactive chemical facility poses to the nearby residents,  schools, and places of worship. They contended that EPA’s decision was made without any consultation.

However, court documents seen by this newspaper outlined that SGI, a major contractor for Exxon Mobil operations in Guyana applied to the Court for the order that the judgment of Justice Harnanan is stayed for a period of two months or alternatively for a period of 28 days so as to permit the company to remove any radioactive sources which it may have stored at its facility.

The company also asked for an order suspending the injunction granted by the Court on December 16, 2022, so as to permit SGI to receive any radioactive sources presently offshore and en route to its facility at Houston, Georgetown.

In the application for the stay drafted by the Law Firm of Hughes, Fields and Stoby outlined that the injunction order by [the Court] did not include any security for costs or undertaking as to damages which may be suffered by the company while complying with the order.

The company, therefore, craved the court’s indulgence for a stay of two months within which to decommission its operation and obtain alternatives so as to not be in breach of its contractual obligations to its customers.

In an affidavit opposing SGI’s application, the Radziks as well as Mr. Singh noted that they observe that there has been no change in activity at the premises of Schlumberger.

There has been no attempt to decommission the facility or to suspend operations after the case ended or pending the hearing of this application.  The residents (respondents) therefore opined that the company considers itself superior to the Laws of Guyana.

The affidavit noted that Schlumberger’s actions are a threat to the rule of law and the effective administration of justice in our country.

“We are advised by Counsel and verily believe that the Order which was made on 16th December 2022 was a final Order. We are informed by our attorney-at-law, Ronald Burch-Smith that as at the date of this affidavit, 16th January 2022, no Notice of Appeal has been served on assumes therefore that there is no intention to appeal,” the respondents added in their affidavit.

Attorneys, Marlene Alleyne, Siand Dhurjon are also on record as lawyers for the residents.

The three residents had approached the court seeking an Order of Certiorari to quash the construction permit EPA granted to Schlumberger and an order of injunction to prevent the company from continuing any construction of the facility.

In responding to the residents’ lawsuit, the EPA in its Defence disclosed that the construction of the radioactive facility was already completed and that it had granted permission to Schlumberger to use, possess and store radioactive substances at the facility since January 26, 2022.

The State Agency also submitted to the court that the Orders the residents sought ought not to be granted since the construction was completed and the operation had already started.

For its part, Schlumberger in its Affidavit of Defence argued that the public did not need any notice that the EPA was considering a radioactive materials usage, possession, and storage permit because the Authority was satisfied that there would be no substantial impact on the environment.

Notably, the EPA had joined Schlumberger in its Defence stating that it was clear that the project would not affect the residents or the environment.

However, the lawyers for the residents contended and maintained that the use and storage of radioactive materials at Houston, EBD could significantly impact the environment and should be moved to a less populated area.

---

• Danuta Radzik, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Justice Nareshwar Harnanan, Raphael Singh, Schlumberger Guyana Inc, Vanda Radzik

---